Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses non-obvious behavior beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotent annotations: BGE-base-en embeddings, cosine similarity, 500-char overlapping windows, 200K char cap with truncation flagging, and that passages include offsets and similarity scores. This gives the agent a realistic model of how results are produced.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is four sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and progresses logically from purpose to usage to technical details. Every sentence provides distinct information—no filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description adequately specifies return values (passages with offsets and similarity scores), input limits, and alignment with ask_pipeworx_grounded. It gives an agent enough understanding of the tool's behavior and trade-offs to decide when and how to invoke it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving concrete examples for text (SEC 10-K body, article) and clarifying that limit returns 'top-N passages.' This enriches the bare schema definitions, even though it doesn't fundamentally redefine them.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with 'Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record,' clearly specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like deep_research or ask_pipeworx by focusing on searching within user-supplied text and explicitly pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded, reinforcing its unique role.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt' and 'search_within saves context.' It also names an alternative/complement: 'Pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded: fetch with the gateway, ground over the relevant passages instead of the whole document.' This gives clear decision context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.